Do you believe in a god that is

[svenson]

Most people who? Buddhists have a very different viewpoint - that's approximately 376 million folks right there. Hindus? Add another 900 million, but then you guys already negated the concept of Pararahman by stating that

There are 2.1 billion Christians in this world and 1.3 billion Muslims. That is more than half the world’s population right there. The group of people who hold these beliefs is obviously larger than the groups that do not. That is what most means.

which, by its basic etymology is something "transcendent of time and space" - but, there you go. Obviously the Western world is the only world that matters.

So, discounting most of Asia and the Indian sub-continent, what we're talking about is a Euro-centric vision of God.

What does outside of time mean? How does something operate outside of time? You have offered no explanations at all, just because you can say something that doesn’t make it coherent.

Gee, lookie there... 3 colloquialisms before one in a "theological sense" even shows up. Funny thing is, the "theological sense" tends to occupy slot 3 or four in any dictionary I look up the word "faith" in. And gee whiz, look at the FIRST definition, that old bugaboo "truth" - and HOKEY SMOKES!! The second definition lists "trust" as a synonym. So, let's toss re-definition aside, shall we? Faith, to most English speaking persons can be equated to trust, at least, according to the folks who publish dictionaries.

Dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use. Would you be surprised to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? Some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages and dictionaries list these definitions, sometimes along with the proper theological definitions. Dictionaries do not offer a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. That is your error. Your source does not provide a philosophical justification for the definition; it is merely citing common usage. So, yes it is equivocation.

Which could be interpreted to mean that if every dog I ever saw in my life was yellow, along with every reference about dogs anyone ever made to me included the statement that "it was a yellow dog" and nowhere EVER in my experience, did I have anything ever occur that would negate my observations of yellow dogs - by that measure, I would know that all dogs are yellow? Or, would it be better to say I believed, I trusted that all dogs were yellow?

I mean, come on, it's been justified by my reality, right?

It would be trust and you wouldn’t have any way of justifying the belief that dogs were anything but yellow. Of course outside of your analogy you would be able to investigate beyond what you saw on your street or what people have said to you in passing about dogs so you could easily figure out that not all dogs are yellow. So I don’t think that analogy really drives home the point you are trying to make. But if something is completely outside of your experience and your ability to investigate the matter then the best you can say about it is “I don’t know”. You can’t just make naked assertions and expect that it will be placed on par with empirical data.

i didnt no zorastrians still here i thought it died long ago

[SmashysmashY]

We really do have to be careful to agree upon a universe of discourse before embarking on proofs or disproofs involving universal or existential claims. This is exactly what the yellow dog example illustrates.
If there really are no yellow dogs in the universe, then the existence of non-yellow dogs is precluded. This is because existence is a quantifier that ranges over the universe of discourse. What is not precluded is that one might imagine another universe with a black dog. One could attempt to extend the universe of discourse so as to include dogs of other colors. To do so requires that it be explained how the universe of discourse is to be extended so that we all understand what we’re talking about. To say merely that we’re going extend to contain things things that didn’t exist in the old universe does no work. To say we’re going to extend it to include dogs of other colors begs the question.

Yes! You put this much better than I could. If you are going to define something negatively, using negative terms like “supernatural” or “immaterial”, or concepts like “outside of time” there has to be something left over for the thing to be. Using these terms excludes everything from the universe of discourse so when you speak of these things you speak of nothing.

[insert_namehere]

Yes! You put this much better than I could. If you are going to define something negatively, using negative terms like "supernatural" or "immaterial", or concepts like "outside of time" there has to be something left over for the thing to be. Using these terms excludes everything from the universe of discourse so when you speak of these things you speak of nothing.

Sigh.

Look, you decided to construct a debate that is ruled by "known precepts" of physics, physical law, empirical evidence, etc.; but also included an omnipotent, omnipresent and prescient being.

Your construct, not mine.

Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?

The result of this is an empirical universe that includes ONE being that cannot exist within the rules, boundary and laws of this universe you want to stay inside of.

So, since you want me to only discuss the logic of this illogical being within the confines of the rules you want me to stay inside of - please tell me how an omnipotent creator god fits in the this empirical universe.

I will hold all my arguments within the explanation you can give me that allows for a supreme omnipotent being but does not allow for the possibility of aspects of this empirical universe that we, as the top sentient beings who define what can and cannot exist in this universe may not be aware of.

Thanks in advance for what I'm certain is going to be a well constructed understanding of this single exception to the rules of empiricism.

[ezed]

We are humans. Take our brain. What percentage do we use at this point in our evolution. Physicis, time and space. Is it all science, relegated to the extent of knowlege that humans have come up with?

But us humans have not traveled beyond our own moon. We sent probes with in our own solar system. But our own solar system is miniscule. And so is our knowledge.

We can think of God as all powerful, all knowing, and omnipotent! But that in itself is limited to our imagination of what is all powerful, all knowing and omnipotent.

insert_namehere, has an open mind and is not limiting himself to the current bundle of knowledge. When we limit our beliefs to what is known, we limit our evolution.

When you quote science, when you quote religion, you are boxing in your brain.

SmashysmashY, you've started something! Don't styfil it. let it take it's course. Maybe we'll advance beyond all the shit going on in the world.

Enough! The drugs are wearing off. Back to looking for pics!

Hey, think about that! All the theories on transexuals and those who like them! Are we ready to deal with such a topic? I don't know but physics and science certainly can't answer it.

[trish]

Yes! You put this much better than I could. If you are going to define something negatively, using negative terms like “supernatural” or “immaterial”, or concepts like “outside of time” there has to be something left over for the thing to be. Using these terms excludes everything from the universe of discourse so when you speak of these things you speak of nothing.

Thanks SmashysmashY. I would emphasize the proviso that the universe of discourse can be expanded, contracted or changed in any other way as long as the parties to the discussion understand and agree on what that universe is. I think that is exactly the problem we’re facing right now. You are being accused of restricting the discussion to scientific discourse where the universe would be physical universe of energy, matter and fields. Insert_namehere suggests expanding the domain of discussion but is unable to make clear what the expanded domain looks like. This presents an insurmountable difficulty when trying to ascertain the truth of a universal or existential proposition because the corresponding quantifiers range over the domain of discourse and there is no agreement on what that domain is. When the domain of discourse is so hopelessly undetermined there is a great temptation to beg the question by just assuming it could contain the entity whose possibility one is attempting to prove. Courteous people usually get around this sort of difficulty agreeing they don’t know fully what they’re talking about but still agree to talk about it, taking great care not to make assumptions. In this case if we agree to speak of things that transcend space and time, then we cannot speak of those things as if they could occupy space or take part in actions that have duration. Either the discussion will peter out because it remains to general and both parties will agree nothing meaningful can really be said, or through the discussion the parties will refine and further delineate the new domain of discussion.

[InHouston]

Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?

The reason that I ask this question is that if this god exists it would remove any responsibility from anyone else and place it all on the god. Let me explain:

If god created everything then everything was created by god, clearly.

If god is also all powerful then everything was created by god the way that god chose to create it and not another way, because go had the power to create it any way god wanted or not at all.

If god is also all knowing then everything was created by god the way that god chose and with god’s desired results, because if god wanted it to be a different way then god had the knowledge and the power to make it that way.

This creates a perfect circle of responsibility where nothing happens except for the things that god chooses to make happen and it does not leave room for anyone else to make choices. “But SmasysmashY, god created us with free will, that means we are all responsible for our own actions.” Yes, it would appear so at the outset wouldn’t it? But our three ifs actually preclude this as well.

Imagine that I created a robot, and I gave this robot free will, and I had nearly unlimited resources so I could have created this robot with any specifications. When I turn the robot on it prints a report of all the actions that it will ever engage in and I see that tomorrow at 13:00 hours the robot will pick up a hammer and hit my assistant in the face killing him instantly. I don’t make any adjustments and allow the robot to continue its existence unchanged. Who is responsible for the death, the robot or me?

If you haven’t figured it out I am god in this scenario and the robot is any person, and I am fully responsible in fact I could not be more responsible than I am because the death is a direct result of my actions, actions that I did not have to take, could have done differently, and knew exactly what the results would be. Of course for god it is much worse because I am only responsible for the robot and myself, but god’s responsibility would extend to everything including the existence of free will and its definition, parameters and the fact that anyone has it or that it even exists at all. This would make our creator god not only omnipotent and omniscient but also omni responsible.

To ask if God created the universe is to ask the wrong question because you’re humanizing the universe with man’s mythical ideas. A better question to ask is ‘how’ did the universe form into what it is now and not ‘who’ created it. And for that matter, the universe is so vast that creation may have nothing to do with it at all. No one knows if the universe was in fact created, although the Big Bangers will argue that position with their own fantastic version of creationism. Personally I find it hard to fathom that the entire universe was once compressed in a space smaller than an atom, and then suddenly exploded outward with the Big Bang … yeah.

In other words, if you find yourself getting caught up in the kind of conundrums you’re juggling here, then you’re more than likely way off course from arriving at the truth, because you’re asking the wrong questions. Why struggle with questions regarding a mythical entity (God) that doesn’t exist in the first place? Why? Why? Why?

As far as who is responsible for your robot’s aggravated assault with a hammer … that would be the programmer. This is the old “freewill vs. determinism debate”. However, robots don’t have freewill, and probably never will. If I bash someone on the head with a hammer, was that freewill on my part or some predetermined fate? Well … why not both? Is the glass half empty or full? It’s both. What came first the chicken or the egg? Neither … DNA preceded them both.

There is an answer for everything, even to some of the most baffling questions. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? No. There is no such thing as sound. Sound is the electrical interpretation by the brain of waves striking your ear drum. Outside the brain, sound does not exist.

What is the meaning of life? Complex carbon chemistry.

See? You can look at life in simple terms of sensible questions and reasonable answers based on known facts. Those questions that cannot yet be answered like “Where did the universe come from?”, are still being worked out.

Stay tuned.

[SmashysmashY]

insert_namehere

I really don’t want to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your head or however you would put it, but it seems to me that what you are saying is that you are being limited needlessly by the constraints of this discussion. But the question that you haven’t answered is what you would replace empiricism with exactly. I could assume what you would replace it with but then I’d be arguing with myself and I wouldn’t need you at all.

You asked if everyone has to make assumptions and I said yes. Everyone has to make assumptions but that doesn’t mean that we can make ones that contradict things we already know.

Now if you want to argue that gods of this sort don’t fit within this framework because it is flawed then you can do that but you’ll need to tell me what you would replace it with. If you are replacing it with intuition then great, you win, end of debate. God exists, and so does the grendel from beowulf, and the smurfs from that french cartoon. I could argue that intuition is not reliable but if you agree with that then I don’t understand how you are being unfairly limited here when you are using the most reliable method for determining the truth value of the claim. I didn’t decide to make the world work the way it does. I just pinched my nose and drank it down like most reasonable people do. If you find that too unpleasant then maybe this discussion isn’t for you. That’s cool; I’m not going to fault you for that.

[SmashysmashY]

Personally I find it hard to fathom that the entire universe was once compressed in a space smaller than atom, and then suddenly exploded outward with the Big Bang … yeah.

Maybe you find it hard to believe because you don't actually know what it is? Just throwing that out there. And what do you think you mean by big banger?

[InHouston]

Personally I find it hard to fathom that the entire universe was once compressed in a space smaller than atom, and then suddenly exploded outward with the Big Bang … yeah.

Maybe you find it hard to believe because you don't actually know what it is? Just throwing that out there. And what do you think you mean by big banger?

What I think I mean by 'Big Banger' is that I'm referring to those who subscribed to the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory is another form of Creationism. It removes God from the picture, which is fine for me, but leaves in the ‘fantastic’. Yes, it seems that galaxies are moving away from each other in all directions, but that doesn’t prove that it was the result of some initial cosmic explosion from a primeval atom. I find it peculiar too that the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, who just so happened to be a Belgian priest; one who would have the proclivity to subscribe to creationism.

Think about it.

[guyone]

I don't think God appreciates this line of conversation.